Vahora v. Valley Diagnostics Laboratory Inc.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GULAMNABI VAHORA, Case No. 1:16-cv-01624-SKO Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 8 FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE v. 9 (Doc. 174) VALLEY DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORY, INC., et al., 12 Defendants. _____________________________________/ 14 ORDER On May 17, 2019, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff and judgment was entered on May 21, 2019. (Docs. 152, 153.) On June 4, 2019, Defendants filed post-trial motions. (Docs.

155, 156.) Defendant Naeem Qarni filed a notice of bankruptcy filing on June 21, 2019, and the Court vacated the hearing on the post-trial motions and directed the parties to brief the issue of whether the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) would apply to stay this case. (See Docs. 162, 163, 165.)

On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice attaching an order entered in Naeem Qarni’s bankruptcy case, case number 19-12679 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, ruling on a motion for relief from the automatic stay. (Doc. 174.)

The bankruptcy court’s order, in relevant part, states as follows: The Motion is granted-in-part, hereby lifting the automatic stay prospectively to the 26 debtor Naeem Qarni, to allow completion through final judgment of the pending federal district court action against the debtor Naeem Qarni and Valley Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01624-SKO. The movant may file, defend, and 1 SKO. (Doc. 174 at 6.)

The Court takes judicial notice of the contents of the bankruptcy court’s order. See Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc. 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.9 (9th Cir. 2006). The bankruptcy court having granted relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) to allow this case to proceed to finality, the post-trial motions will proceed.

8 Having reviewed preliminarily the papers filed in connection with the post-trial motions, (Docs. 155, 156), the Court finds the matters suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the hearing on the motions will not be set, and a written decision will issue as soon as is practicable.

14 IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 Sheila K. Oberto Dated: September 2, 2019 /s/ .

16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE